CITATION: Opong, Akyen-Dickson v. Fullo, Irmak, 2015 ONSC 6522
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 175/14
TNL-54842-14 DATE: 20151021
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
LEITCH, SANDERSON AND SACHS JJ.
BETWEEN:
MORGAN OPONG AND ARABA AKYEN-DICKSON
Respondents
(Landlords)
– and –
HELEN FULLO and RAMAZEN IRMAK
Appellants
(Tenants)
Wade Morris, for the Respondents (Landlords)
Patrick Di Monte, for the Appellants
Andrea A. Cole, for the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Toronto: October 21, 2015
SACHS J. (ORALLY)
[1] Essentially, the only issue argued on this appeal is whether the Board erred in law by finding that the evidence of "V.C." was not relevant because "V.C." was not an owner of the property and therefore could not have entered into a three year lease with the appellants. Before us, but not before the Board, the appellants submitted that the definition of "Landlord" in the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 ("the Act") includes "any other person who permits occupancy of a rental unit" and that "V.C." (or his company) was such a person. Because the submission was never squarely made before it, the Board did not make a determination on this issue, which could have impacted on the question of whether there was a three year lease in place. This in turn could have impacted on the Board's decision about whether or not to uphold the eviction notice that was being challenged because it contemplated the termination of the tenancy before the expiry of the alleged lease.
[2] The appellants' request in their Notice of Appeal, if we agreed with their submission, was to set aside the Board's order and to grant them damages. In argument, the appellants conceded that there was no basis upon which we could grant them the damages remedy. That would require a determination by the Board on the three year lease question. However, the appellants also conceded that if we were to set aside the Board's order and order a re-hearing on the three year lease question, the Board has no jurisdiction to award the appellants the damages they are seeking.
[3] In view of these realities, we are dismissing this appeal.
LEITCH J.
COSTS
[4] I have endorsed the Appeal Book, "The appeal is dismissed for oral reasons given by Sachs J. $3,000 in costs are awarded to the respondents payable by the appellants. No costs are sought by or awarded to the Board."
___________________________ SACHS J.
LEITCH J.
SANDERSON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 21, 2015
Date of Release: October 26, 2015
CITATION: Opong, Akyen-Dickson v. Fullo, Irmak, 2015 ONSC 6522
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 175/14
TNL-54842-14 DATE: 20151021
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LEITCH, SANDERSON AND SACHS JJ.
BETWEEN:
MORGAN OPONG AND ARABA AKYEN-DICKSON
Respondents
(Landlords)
– and –
HELEN FULLO and RAMAZEN IRMAK
Appellants
(Tenants)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 21, 2015
Date of Release: October 26, 2015